In November of 2008, the Indian city of Mumbai suffered a devastating terrorist rampage that left 164 people dead (including 10 terrorists) and over 300 wounded. The Lashkar-e-Taiba group based out of Pakistan was found to be the culprit, and many experts support the theory that Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) provided some support to the terrorists. Now, less than three years later, the people of Mumbai have been dealt another serious blow. On Wednesday, July 13, three bombs detonated almost simultaneously. The explosions occurred in the densely populated urban neighborhood of Dadar, the jewelry markets of the Zaveri Bazaar, and the business district of Opera House in southern Mumbai. At least 21 people were killed in the blasts and another 141 were injured. The Blaze has more on this story, but be warned that the article contains graphic images.
The guilty party in this most recent attack appears to be the Indian Mujahideen, a "homegrown" group that adheres to radical Sunni ideology. While these bombs were certainly deadly, STRATFOR points out that "this attack does not appear to be as sophisticated as the 2008 attacks," which involved a highly coordinated strike by foreign operatives on Indian soil that lasted for 60 brutal hours. One of the main reasons for concern (beyond the tragic loss of life) is the fact that Lashkar-e-Taiba has significant ties to the Indian Mujahideen. According to some reports, bombmakers from Lashkar-e-Taiba may have constructed the devices used in Wednesday's attack because the top bombmakers of the Indian Mujahideen are all in prison. The Indian Mujahideen have tried bombings over the past couple of years, but the devices proved to be defective. Why, all of a sudden, would they be able to coordinate explosions of this magnitude? If this connection is true, then Pakistani groups may be hiding behind local Indian terrorists to advance their common agenda and spread Indian security forces dangerously thin. It would also give the ISI yet another layer of deniability without limiting their opportunities.
The Pakistani government officially condemned the attack, but in reality this means very little. I do not doubt that most of Pakistan's political class are upset at further disruptions to their negotiations with the Indian government. Unfortunately for them, these politicians have less power than they pretend. The military and intelligence services, particularly the ISI, are the real power-players in Pakistan and operate with virtual impunity. The situation is made more disturbing as Pakistan draws increasingly close to China even as Pakistani-US relations worsen. The Indian government is sure to recognize the potential consequences of two of its nuclear-armed neighbors (and rivals) establishing such a cozy relationship with one another. As Indian Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram (read that out loud and tell me it doesn't sound like the title of a camp song) said, "We live in the most dangerous neighborhood in the world. Every part of India is vulnerable." The real question is whether the politicians and analysts in Washington D.C. understand what is happening and have the nerve to stand beside India at a time when the region is turning against them (Huh. You know, that sounds an awful lot like another "I" country suffering from regular Islamist attacks. But more on that in a later post).
The continued attacks on Mumbai highlight an important element in the jihadist strategy: weaken the enemy's financial institutions until they collapse under their own weight. At such a delicate economic time in the world, such a strategy could prove devestating. With riots spreading across the European Union and looming in hard-hit areas of the United States, one critical strike could send the entire world spinning into chaos. And that is exactly what the Islamists, along with their Socialist and Communist allies, want. The people of Mumbai have been hit with another major tragedy. It is important for all of us to recognize the implications of that tragedy. Chaos is on our doorstep, and if we are not careful the entire world could find itself in the same situation as the unfortunate victims of Mumbai.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Friday, July 8, 2011
Slavery and Islam: Part Three-The Spoils of War
In the previous installments of this series, I have presented the idea of Islam's fundamental dependence on slavery from the perspectives of sexual slavery and slave labor. Now I want to wrap it all up where it pretty much all began: slaves as spoils of war. To be clear, taking captives to use as slaves in wartime is as old as organized warfare itself, so I am not saying that Islamic culture is responsible for this phenomenon. Nevertheless, the use of captives (almost always non-combatants) to fuel the war effort, either as a labor force or as human shields, is still a core element of the jihad and must not be overlooked or forgotten.
According to Islamic doctrine, the world is broken into two groups: Dar al-Islam (the land of submission, as in those who have already submitted to Mohammed's message) and the Dar al-Harb (the land of war, as in those who still resist the dictates of Islam). The term "land" literally refers to whether or not the national government is subservient to the dictates of Islam, in other words run under sharia. The mere existence of the Dar al-Harb serves as sufficient justification for any act of war by Muslims. Thus smooth-talking Muslim "moderates" (as opposed to Muslims who actually seek to reform their religion) can assure the media that jihad was only meant for defensive purposes without actually lying. You see, Islamic doctrine holds that the entire world began under a sort of proto-Islam that was then corrupted until the people fell away from Allah. The simple fact that we (non-Muslims) are not dead, converted, or kept in a state of dhimmitude means that we are "occupying" what should be Muslim lands and are thus fair game. With that very simple but crucial bit of understanding, it becomes easier to grasp why Islamists do what they do, including the use of slavery as a tool of war.
Historically, the capture of slaves was a priority for Islamic conquerors. Only a few centuries after the death of Mohammed, Muslim raiders were striking as deeply into Christendom as Rome itself. Early Muslim generals used captives as expendable front-line troops (with the hope that opposing armies would hesitate when facing their own countrymen). Hundreds of years later, the Ottomans would perfect that art with the Janissaries, Christian boys captured in raids or taken from occupied lands at a very young age and raised to be some of the fiercest warriors of their era. The picture was the same on the seas as Muslim pirates would attack Christian merchants or warships and take as many sailors prisoner as possible. These prisoners would either be used to bolster the Caliphate's navy or sold when the pirates returned to port. Miguel Cervantes, the author of Don Quixote, suffered for five years as a slave in Algiers when his ship was attacked by corsairs in 1575. Though he was saved by the efforts of the Trinitarians (a Christian group dedicated to purchasing freedom for slaves), untold thousands were not as blessed and never tasted freedom until their death. The corsairs became such a persistent threat that, after the Holy Land was lost, the Knights Hospitallar became wholly focused on stemming the tide (no pun intended) of Islamic piracy. Later, the United States would go to war with the Barbary States (twice!) in order to protect American sailors from such a fate. While the abolishment of the Caliphate by Attaturk shattered the Muslim world's military might, the use of slaves to progress the jihad still lives on to this day.
When Muslim raiders attacked a village, their favorite tactic was to slaughter any men who would be able to resist then kidnap women and children. Those two groups were preferred captives for several reasons. First, neither group would have received any real combat training and would be easier to control through brute force. Second, their capture would have a demoralizing effect on the survivors and could prevent pursuit if the villagers were afraid the captives would be harmed in retaliation. Third, women and young girls (as well as a surprisingly large number of boys) would be valuable as sexual slaves while young men would work in the fields or as household slaves. Boys would also be drafted into the army while they were young enough to be malleable. We see this today (though again not restricted to Islam) in the abduction and brainwashing of child soldiers, particularly in central Africa.
The country of Sudan provides a chilling example of such practices in action today. Anti-Slavery International reports that between 5,000 and 14,000 people have been abducted in armed raids and forced into slavery since 1983. Almost exclusively, the targets of these raids have been the non-Muslims in the south. Rather than fighting this scourge, the Islamic government of Sudan has been a key player in these events, using militia forces to ravage the Christian and animist communities. The militias are instruments of pure terror, looting then burning homes and churches and murdering scores of innocent civilians. In response, several organizations have been working on purchasing freedom for the captives in the same way Cervantes was freed over four hundred years ago. Two of the groups active in this effort have been Christian Solidarity International and the American Anti-Slavery Group. These efforts have not always met with support from European and American officials who want to maintain good relations with Khartoum. Moreover, the government of Sudan, along with a handful of other Muslim governments, has accused those fighting the slave trade of defaming Islam. I say that is all the more reason to keep going!
In conclusion, I want to bring your attention back to Salwa al-Mutairi. You remember her, the delightful woman who wanted to restore legalized sex slavery in Kuwait? Well, a key part of that story was the fact that she advocated that "POWs" from the "Chechnyan war" be bought and sold as slaves rather than be "slaughtered." That should provide quite a bit of insight into the differences between the Western and Islamic views of war. In the West, there are many rules governing the treatment of prisoners. But Muslims waging the jihad torture and execute captives so that anyone with an Internet connection can watch. Captives exist as propaganda tools and nothing more. From that frame of mind, al-Mutairi's argument makes a certain element of sense. Why simply kill a captive when you can make a bit of profit on the side? Anything to make the Dar al-Harb weaker and strengthen the Dar al-Islam.
This series has taken us down some roads that most people in our supposedly civilized society would choose to ignore. In the next decade, I believe that we will see advocates for legalized slavery (although they would call it something different, of course) pop up in Europe and maybe even America as the Muslim communities grow bolder and increasingly radicalized. One thing is certain, however: as long as the West continues to pretend the problem doesn't exist, the worse it will get. Only honest examination of slavery, past and present, can allow us to move toward a solution to this problem. The abolition movement of the 1800s gave way to the civil rights movements of the 20th century. Will we see a similar movement in the 21st century, or is ending slave practices permitted by the Koran simply not acceptable for the politically correct "social justice" crowd?
According to Islamic doctrine, the world is broken into two groups: Dar al-Islam (the land of submission, as in those who have already submitted to Mohammed's message) and the Dar al-Harb (the land of war, as in those who still resist the dictates of Islam). The term "land" literally refers to whether or not the national government is subservient to the dictates of Islam, in other words run under sharia. The mere existence of the Dar al-Harb serves as sufficient justification for any act of war by Muslims. Thus smooth-talking Muslim "moderates" (as opposed to Muslims who actually seek to reform their religion) can assure the media that jihad was only meant for defensive purposes without actually lying. You see, Islamic doctrine holds that the entire world began under a sort of proto-Islam that was then corrupted until the people fell away from Allah. The simple fact that we (non-Muslims) are not dead, converted, or kept in a state of dhimmitude means that we are "occupying" what should be Muslim lands and are thus fair game. With that very simple but crucial bit of understanding, it becomes easier to grasp why Islamists do what they do, including the use of slavery as a tool of war.
Historically, the capture of slaves was a priority for Islamic conquerors. Only a few centuries after the death of Mohammed, Muslim raiders were striking as deeply into Christendom as Rome itself. Early Muslim generals used captives as expendable front-line troops (with the hope that opposing armies would hesitate when facing their own countrymen). Hundreds of years later, the Ottomans would perfect that art with the Janissaries, Christian boys captured in raids or taken from occupied lands at a very young age and raised to be some of the fiercest warriors of their era. The picture was the same on the seas as Muslim pirates would attack Christian merchants or warships and take as many sailors prisoner as possible. These prisoners would either be used to bolster the Caliphate's navy or sold when the pirates returned to port. Miguel Cervantes, the author of Don Quixote, suffered for five years as a slave in Algiers when his ship was attacked by corsairs in 1575. Though he was saved by the efforts of the Trinitarians (a Christian group dedicated to purchasing freedom for slaves), untold thousands were not as blessed and never tasted freedom until their death. The corsairs became such a persistent threat that, after the Holy Land was lost, the Knights Hospitallar became wholly focused on stemming the tide (no pun intended) of Islamic piracy. Later, the United States would go to war with the Barbary States (twice!) in order to protect American sailors from such a fate. While the abolishment of the Caliphate by Attaturk shattered the Muslim world's military might, the use of slaves to progress the jihad still lives on to this day.
When Muslim raiders attacked a village, their favorite tactic was to slaughter any men who would be able to resist then kidnap women and children. Those two groups were preferred captives for several reasons. First, neither group would have received any real combat training and would be easier to control through brute force. Second, their capture would have a demoralizing effect on the survivors and could prevent pursuit if the villagers were afraid the captives would be harmed in retaliation. Third, women and young girls (as well as a surprisingly large number of boys) would be valuable as sexual slaves while young men would work in the fields or as household slaves. Boys would also be drafted into the army while they were young enough to be malleable. We see this today (though again not restricted to Islam) in the abduction and brainwashing of child soldiers, particularly in central Africa.
The country of Sudan provides a chilling example of such practices in action today. Anti-Slavery International reports that between 5,000 and 14,000 people have been abducted in armed raids and forced into slavery since 1983. Almost exclusively, the targets of these raids have been the non-Muslims in the south. Rather than fighting this scourge, the Islamic government of Sudan has been a key player in these events, using militia forces to ravage the Christian and animist communities. The militias are instruments of pure terror, looting then burning homes and churches and murdering scores of innocent civilians. In response, several organizations have been working on purchasing freedom for the captives in the same way Cervantes was freed over four hundred years ago. Two of the groups active in this effort have been Christian Solidarity International and the American Anti-Slavery Group. These efforts have not always met with support from European and American officials who want to maintain good relations with Khartoum. Moreover, the government of Sudan, along with a handful of other Muslim governments, has accused those fighting the slave trade of defaming Islam. I say that is all the more reason to keep going!
In conclusion, I want to bring your attention back to Salwa al-Mutairi. You remember her, the delightful woman who wanted to restore legalized sex slavery in Kuwait? Well, a key part of that story was the fact that she advocated that "POWs" from the "Chechnyan war" be bought and sold as slaves rather than be "slaughtered." That should provide quite a bit of insight into the differences between the Western and Islamic views of war. In the West, there are many rules governing the treatment of prisoners. But Muslims waging the jihad torture and execute captives so that anyone with an Internet connection can watch. Captives exist as propaganda tools and nothing more. From that frame of mind, al-Mutairi's argument makes a certain element of sense. Why simply kill a captive when you can make a bit of profit on the side? Anything to make the Dar al-Harb weaker and strengthen the Dar al-Islam.
This series has taken us down some roads that most people in our supposedly civilized society would choose to ignore. In the next decade, I believe that we will see advocates for legalized slavery (although they would call it something different, of course) pop up in Europe and maybe even America as the Muslim communities grow bolder and increasingly radicalized. One thing is certain, however: as long as the West continues to pretend the problem doesn't exist, the worse it will get. Only honest examination of slavery, past and present, can allow us to move toward a solution to this problem. The abolition movement of the 1800s gave way to the civil rights movements of the 20th century. Will we see a similar movement in the 21st century, or is ending slave practices permitted by the Koran simply not acceptable for the politically correct "social justice" crowd?
Friday, July 1, 2011
On Vacation
This week I am on vacation, but I will be back with the final chapter in my series "Slavery and Islam" next Friday.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Slavery and Islam: Part Two-Slave Labor
America's turbulent history of slavery has been used by many progressives as a club to intimidate political opponents and push for redistribution of wealth. However, these same people turn a blind eye to the rampant slavery that continues to this day in the Islamic world. In part one of this series, we examined the slave trade as it pertains to sexual slavery along with some very nasty comments from influential figures urging Muslim legislators to restore the legal status of sex slavery. Part two is focused on the more traditional version of slavery that Americans read about in our own history: slave labor. Slavery has been a part of Islamic expansionism since Mohammed began spreading his message because it broke the spirits of defeated peoples while providing free labor and human shields to build the empire.
The North African country of Mauritania, just south of Morocco, is a perfect example of the slavery that still exists in Islamic countries and how it is divided along racial lines. Mauritania was one of the last countries in the entire world to write legislation outlawing slavery in 1981. However, these laws are rarely enforced. Some estimates have current slave numbers somewhere around the 600,000 mark (about 20% of the entire population). Mauritania was a center of the Arab slave trade for many years, and the descendants of the black slaves (the Haratin) make up the vast majority of current slaves. This racial tinge is not unique to Mauritania. Part three of this series will delve more deeply into the racial underpinnings of Islamic slavery.
Our "good friend" Pakistan is also rife with instances of slave labor, especially in the rural north. In particular, household servants (drawn largely from the minority Christian population) are routinely beaten and raped. There are numerous cases of Muslim landowners claiming that someone owes them a debt (without proof) and demanding bonded labor until the fictional debt is repaid. People who have refused to work for such masters have been attacked by mobs and arrested. Even children are forced to work, usually young girls as maids. Some children have been abducted in order to pay off a family debt (real or imagined). In most cases, the slaves are offered better conditions or even cancellation of the debt if they convert to Islam (historically a common tactic by victorious Muslim armies).
It should be telling that Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Mohammed and the spiritual heartland of Islam, did not formally abolish slavery until 1962, and even then only under intense international pressure. While the slave markets of centuries past stand deserted, the underlying philosophy has not changed. The oil-rich nations of the Arabian Peninsula have a workforce almost entirely composed of foreigners. These foreign workers are often abused and forced to work in miserable conditions by their employers. In addition, despite the fact that they make up the backbone of the economy (and comprise a third of Saudi Arabia's population), foreign workers are consistently mistreated in the legal system. It is not only Saudi Arabia that has this problem. As Dubai has rapidly expanded in the last decade or so, there has been a flood of semi-skilled laborers. These laborers were lured by the promise of work but find themselves working in horrible conditions and paid so little that they cannot return home.
While isolated incidents involving members of a group does not mean that the group itself is at fault, the sheer number of abuses in Muslim countries and the theological support from the Koran means that the problem is deeper than a few individuals. I do not mean to denigrate the efforts of those Muslims who choose to stand against slavery; on the contrary, those efforts are deserving of the highest praise. But individual nobility does not excuse centuries of history and a culture that places a lower value on some human beings than others. As Winston Churchill said, "Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in all the world." And this was coming from the guy who went toe-to-toe with Nazism in England's darkest hour. If he says Islam (or "Mohammedanism" as he called it) is a negative influence, we should take his word for it.
Stay tuned for the third and final installment, "Slavery and Islam: Part Three Spoils of War," next week.
The North African country of Mauritania, just south of Morocco, is a perfect example of the slavery that still exists in Islamic countries and how it is divided along racial lines. Mauritania was one of the last countries in the entire world to write legislation outlawing slavery in 1981. However, these laws are rarely enforced. Some estimates have current slave numbers somewhere around the 600,000 mark (about 20% of the entire population). Mauritania was a center of the Arab slave trade for many years, and the descendants of the black slaves (the Haratin) make up the vast majority of current slaves. This racial tinge is not unique to Mauritania. Part three of this series will delve more deeply into the racial underpinnings of Islamic slavery.
Our "good friend" Pakistan is also rife with instances of slave labor, especially in the rural north. In particular, household servants (drawn largely from the minority Christian population) are routinely beaten and raped. There are numerous cases of Muslim landowners claiming that someone owes them a debt (without proof) and demanding bonded labor until the fictional debt is repaid. People who have refused to work for such masters have been attacked by mobs and arrested. Even children are forced to work, usually young girls as maids. Some children have been abducted in order to pay off a family debt (real or imagined). In most cases, the slaves are offered better conditions or even cancellation of the debt if they convert to Islam (historically a common tactic by victorious Muslim armies).
It should be telling that Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Mohammed and the spiritual heartland of Islam, did not formally abolish slavery until 1962, and even then only under intense international pressure. While the slave markets of centuries past stand deserted, the underlying philosophy has not changed. The oil-rich nations of the Arabian Peninsula have a workforce almost entirely composed of foreigners. These foreign workers are often abused and forced to work in miserable conditions by their employers. In addition, despite the fact that they make up the backbone of the economy (and comprise a third of Saudi Arabia's population), foreign workers are consistently mistreated in the legal system. It is not only Saudi Arabia that has this problem. As Dubai has rapidly expanded in the last decade or so, there has been a flood of semi-skilled laborers. These laborers were lured by the promise of work but find themselves working in horrible conditions and paid so little that they cannot return home.
While isolated incidents involving members of a group does not mean that the group itself is at fault, the sheer number of abuses in Muslim countries and the theological support from the Koran means that the problem is deeper than a few individuals. I do not mean to denigrate the efforts of those Muslims who choose to stand against slavery; on the contrary, those efforts are deserving of the highest praise. But individual nobility does not excuse centuries of history and a culture that places a lower value on some human beings than others. As Winston Churchill said, "Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in all the world." And this was coming from the guy who went toe-to-toe with Nazism in England's darkest hour. If he says Islam (or "Mohammedanism" as he called it) is a negative influence, we should take his word for it.
Stay tuned for the third and final installment, "Slavery and Islam: Part Three Spoils of War," next week.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Slavery and Islam-Part One: Sex Slavery
The history of slavery and its abolition in the United States has been written in blood. While many Americans foolishly believe that slavery began with Christopher Columbus' discovery of the New World and ended with the Emancipation Proclamation, that is simply not the case. But what they do not know, and has been carefully ignored by progressive historians, is the relationship between Islam and slavery. While the historic roots of Islam's impact on the slave trade run deep, this series will focus on the modern slavery still rampant in Islamic cultures.
Recently, a couple of videos featuring Egyptian cleric Abi-Ishaq al-Huwayni have been making the rounds. In his first clip, the prominent Islamic scholar explained that, "The poverty that we're in-is it not due to our abandonment of jihad?" He goes on to say that jihadist raids against the West could solve Muslims' economic woes because, "Every mujahid who returned from jihad, his pockets would be full. He would return with 3 or 4 slaves, 3 or 4 women, and 3 or 4 children (emphasis added)." While this may sound shocking to Western ears, for the past millennium the practice of slavery has been the cornerstone of Islamic economics (see my earlier post "Better Dead than Dhimmi").
Of all the forms of slavery condoned by Islam, the most horrific is the practice of sex-slavery, whereby young girls are bought and sold to be used as the playthings of Muslim men. In Islamic jurisprudence, these slave girls have very few rights and can be used and discarded on a whim. In the case of these slaves, normal Islamic rules governing behavior between men and women do not apply. For example, according to Koran 4:24, "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." That means that, even if a slave is married to someone else, it is not adultery to use her for sex. Slaves were also given reduced status in the eyes of the law. Koran 2:178 says, "O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female (emphasis added)." According to this passage, slave girls would have both their slave status and the fact that they were women held against them. If a slave girl was killed by her master, the consequences would be nowhere near as severe as if the master killed a free Muslim man, essentially amounting to a slap on the wrist.
This may seem like a custom from the medieval era, but in reality sexual slavery is still not all that uncommon in the Islamic world. In many places, such as Egypt or Pakistan, Christian women are kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam and marry a Muslim man. Under sharia law, returning to Christianity is punishable by death. Many of these forced brides are "kept as virtual slaves." In addition, human trafficking is a booming business in Muslim countries like Syria, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Eritrea, and Mauritania (keep an eye out. Some of these countries are going to pop up again and again in this series).
The most important thing to remember is that, while Christianity demands spiritual growth and the free acceptance of God's grace, Islam is static. Through the Koran and the Hadith, there is no aspect of a Muslim's life that is left unregulated. Islam also discounts the existence of free will as an insult against Allah's supremacy (for an all-powerful deity, Allah is awfully sensitive). As a result, because slavery is not only accepted but mandated as the birthright of all Muslims, you will never see a serious Islamic movement to abolish slavery. The only reason slavery is officially illegal in the Middle East today is because it was outlawed by the Western empires.
With Islamism gaining more power, we have begun to see more public calls for the restoration of legal slavery. Our good buddy al-Huwayni had a recent telephone interview in which he attempted to clarify his earlier position, which he said was taken out of context. "Do you understand what I'm saying?" he asked. "Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels." Oh. Okay. So he wanted to put in context that slaves are only to be taken from unbelieving population. 'Cause that was totally misunderstood in the first video. But then he doubled down on his slavery comments by saying, "When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her. I choose the man I like, one with strong muscles, or if I want a boy to work in the house, and so forth. I choose one, and pay him a wage. I employ him in a variety of different tasks, then I sell him afterwards." So not only does he not want Muslim slaves, he endorses slavery for all unbelieving men, women, and children. Talk about an equal opportunity employer, huh?
But it's not just one influential Egyptian cleric who endorses enslaving infidels. Female political activist and former candidate for the Kuwaiti parliament Salwa al-Mutairi has called for legislation to legalize enslaved female concubines for Muslim men. She said that Muslim men fear being seduced into immoral behavior by beautiful female servants and that some of these servants have been "casting spells" on them. These poor men, who lack the free will to keep it in their pants, risk committing adultery if they have sex outside of marriage. Of course, slave girls don't count, so they can be used to satisfy the Muslim men until a real wife (or four) comes along. Like al-Huwayni, al-Mutairi says that "free" Muslim women cannot be sex slaves. Instead, she suggests blonde women taken from Russia because Muslim men prefer blonde women. Apparently blondes don't always have more fun. She tries to sell it as humanitarian: "In such a case (the "Chechnyan war") there must be POWs, so why not go and buy those prisoners? Is it better for them to be slaughtered over there?" In her mind, there is no possibility of releasing the prisoners, so why not make a little profit on the side?
There are many elements of Islamic philosophy wrapped up in the issue of slavery, particularly sex slavery, but there are some that are worthy of special attention. First, all non-Muslims are sub-human and worthy only of death or slavery. Second, Muslim men have no free will of their own to resist temptation so other arrangements must be provided in order to protect their honor (a group concept in Islam, remember). Every sexual whim must be granted, either by a wife or a slave girl, and the same system carries over into Paradise. Third, all efforts to spread Islam must crush the will to resist within the infidel populations and make them easier to convert or destroy. That is why the Coptic community in Egypt is particularly hard-hit by kidnappings and forced marriages. And fourth, the war against the infidels must be viewed through pragmatic eyes. To paraphrase al-Mutairi, why kill a defeated enemy when you can make him (or her) your slave?
Legalized slavery may have ended in the West, but if the Islamists have their way we could see clerics from Dearborn to Hamburg claiming their "divine right." Where are the apologists for Islam on this issue? For that matter, where is the media or the government? Every minute they spend blind to the realities on the ground, more people will be sent into a life of servitude. Hopefully this series will open some eyes to the situation. The more people who know the truth, the harder it will be for the enemies of freedom to maintain their illusions.
Recently, a couple of videos featuring Egyptian cleric Abi-Ishaq al-Huwayni have been making the rounds. In his first clip, the prominent Islamic scholar explained that, "The poverty that we're in-is it not due to our abandonment of jihad?" He goes on to say that jihadist raids against the West could solve Muslims' economic woes because, "Every mujahid who returned from jihad, his pockets would be full. He would return with 3 or 4 slaves, 3 or 4 women, and 3 or 4 children (emphasis added)." While this may sound shocking to Western ears, for the past millennium the practice of slavery has been the cornerstone of Islamic economics (see my earlier post "Better Dead than Dhimmi").
Of all the forms of slavery condoned by Islam, the most horrific is the practice of sex-slavery, whereby young girls are bought and sold to be used as the playthings of Muslim men. In Islamic jurisprudence, these slave girls have very few rights and can be used and discarded on a whim. In the case of these slaves, normal Islamic rules governing behavior between men and women do not apply. For example, according to Koran 4:24, "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." That means that, even if a slave is married to someone else, it is not adultery to use her for sex. Slaves were also given reduced status in the eyes of the law. Koran 2:178 says, "O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female (emphasis added)." According to this passage, slave girls would have both their slave status and the fact that they were women held against them. If a slave girl was killed by her master, the consequences would be nowhere near as severe as if the master killed a free Muslim man, essentially amounting to a slap on the wrist.
This may seem like a custom from the medieval era, but in reality sexual slavery is still not all that uncommon in the Islamic world. In many places, such as Egypt or Pakistan, Christian women are kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam and marry a Muslim man. Under sharia law, returning to Christianity is punishable by death. Many of these forced brides are "kept as virtual slaves." In addition, human trafficking is a booming business in Muslim countries like Syria, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Eritrea, and Mauritania (keep an eye out. Some of these countries are going to pop up again and again in this series).
The most important thing to remember is that, while Christianity demands spiritual growth and the free acceptance of God's grace, Islam is static. Through the Koran and the Hadith, there is no aspect of a Muslim's life that is left unregulated. Islam also discounts the existence of free will as an insult against Allah's supremacy (for an all-powerful deity, Allah is awfully sensitive). As a result, because slavery is not only accepted but mandated as the birthright of all Muslims, you will never see a serious Islamic movement to abolish slavery. The only reason slavery is officially illegal in the Middle East today is because it was outlawed by the Western empires.
With Islamism gaining more power, we have begun to see more public calls for the restoration of legal slavery. Our good buddy al-Huwayni had a recent telephone interview in which he attempted to clarify his earlier position, which he said was taken out of context. "Do you understand what I'm saying?" he asked. "Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels." Oh. Okay. So he wanted to put in context that slaves are only to be taken from unbelieving population. 'Cause that was totally misunderstood in the first video. But then he doubled down on his slavery comments by saying, "When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her. I choose the man I like, one with strong muscles, or if I want a boy to work in the house, and so forth. I choose one, and pay him a wage. I employ him in a variety of different tasks, then I sell him afterwards." So not only does he not want Muslim slaves, he endorses slavery for all unbelieving men, women, and children. Talk about an equal opportunity employer, huh?
But it's not just one influential Egyptian cleric who endorses enslaving infidels. Female political activist and former candidate for the Kuwaiti parliament Salwa al-Mutairi has called for legislation to legalize enslaved female concubines for Muslim men. She said that Muslim men fear being seduced into immoral behavior by beautiful female servants and that some of these servants have been "casting spells" on them. These poor men, who lack the free will to keep it in their pants, risk committing adultery if they have sex outside of marriage. Of course, slave girls don't count, so they can be used to satisfy the Muslim men until a real wife (or four) comes along. Like al-Huwayni, al-Mutairi says that "free" Muslim women cannot be sex slaves. Instead, she suggests blonde women taken from Russia because Muslim men prefer blonde women. Apparently blondes don't always have more fun. She tries to sell it as humanitarian: "In such a case (the "Chechnyan war") there must be POWs, so why not go and buy those prisoners? Is it better for them to be slaughtered over there?" In her mind, there is no possibility of releasing the prisoners, so why not make a little profit on the side?
There are many elements of Islamic philosophy wrapped up in the issue of slavery, particularly sex slavery, but there are some that are worthy of special attention. First, all non-Muslims are sub-human and worthy only of death or slavery. Second, Muslim men have no free will of their own to resist temptation so other arrangements must be provided in order to protect their honor (a group concept in Islam, remember). Every sexual whim must be granted, either by a wife or a slave girl, and the same system carries over into Paradise. Third, all efforts to spread Islam must crush the will to resist within the infidel populations and make them easier to convert or destroy. That is why the Coptic community in Egypt is particularly hard-hit by kidnappings and forced marriages. And fourth, the war against the infidels must be viewed through pragmatic eyes. To paraphrase al-Mutairi, why kill a defeated enemy when you can make him (or her) your slave?
Legalized slavery may have ended in the West, but if the Islamists have their way we could see clerics from Dearborn to Hamburg claiming their "divine right." Where are the apologists for Islam on this issue? For that matter, where is the media or the government? Every minute they spend blind to the realities on the ground, more people will be sent into a life of servitude. Hopefully this series will open some eyes to the situation. The more people who know the truth, the harder it will be for the enemies of freedom to maintain their illusions.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
New Posting Schedule
I apologize for my rather irregular posting schedule so far. Other projects have demanded my attention, and sometimes just keeping up with the news seems like a full-time job on its own. To make things easier for the readers of The New Knighthood, I will be establishing a schedule for new posts and polls. Every other Monday, starting on June 20th, there will be a new poll question for you to answer. New posts will be added each Friday, starting tomorrow with my first series: "Slavery and Islam." I will stick to this schedule as best as I am able. Thank you for your patience, and don't forget to spread the word.
Better dead than dhimmi!
Better dead than dhimmi!
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Islamists Flexing Their Muscles in Turkey
On May 31, 2010, naval commandos from Israel's elite Shayetet 13 unit boarded six ships of the "Gaza Freedom Flotilla" which were trying to break through the Israeli blockade. One ship, the Mavi Marmara, turned into a battleground as the "activists" assaulted the Israeli commandos with knives, metal rods, and other weapons. One commando was thrown over the top deck and fell thirty feet to a lower deck. The commandos were armed with paintball guns and stun grenades and had orders to use non-lethal force to gain control of the ship. However, after one of the "activists" grabbed the sidearm of one of the commandos and reportedly shot him in the stomach, the Israelis fired at their assaulters. This caused a tremendous backlash in the international community. Much has been written on this topic already, but it is a critical event in the evolution of Turkey from a secular country to an Islamist power. The Turkish Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH), the organizers of the flotilla, are significantly tied to terrorist groups such as Hamas. The IHH also maintains close relations with the current government of Turkey, and many analysts believe that the flotilla was only possible because of Turkish support.
First, a little history lesson. After the collapse of the Byzantine empire, the Ottoman Turks built the greatest Islamic empire in history. For centuries, the Turks cast a shadow over all of Europe. But internal conflicts and the decadence of their superpower position severely weakened the Ottoman Empire. Their imperial designs on Europe (beyond the Balkans) were laid to rest after a crushing defeat on September 11, 1683 at the Battle of Vienna. They limped along as the other European powers grew stronger. Ultimately, the Ottoman Empire chose the wrong side in World War I. They were the bad guys that the British and Arabs were fighting in Lawrence of Arabia, if you recall. After their defeat, the victorious nations of England and France divided up the former Ottoman territories which encompassed most of the Middle East. Included among the lost land was a little area the British called Palestine, but I'll get to that in a later post. In the aftermath, a charismatic military officer named Mustafa Kemal Ataturk led a revolt against the old regime. Ataturk realized that, while the Ottomans still maintained the customs and thinking of a medieval empire, the rest of the world had moved past them. In a bold move that has enraged Muslims for generations, Ataturk abolished the Caliphate and established a secular government in Turkey. The duty of defending this secularism was given to the military. For most of the 20th century, it seemed impossible that Turkey would fall back into Islamism. However, there were people such as Uriel Heyd who saw what was coming and tried to warn the world before it was too late.
The nation of Turkey has seen a resurgence of influence in the past few years. During that time, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the ruling AKP party have pushed Turkey further into the Islamist camp in direct violation of the Turkish constitution. While there is still significant resistance to the current direction of the country, particularly among the military leadership, the fact is that Turkey has no real reason to turn away from its increasingly Islamic character. Several military officers who have expressed displeasure with Erdogan's leadership have been arrested. The European Union is content to ignore the warning signs and even weaken the ability of the Turkish military to fulfill their constitutional mandate to maintain a secular government. Turkey is an important member of NATO and sits at the crossroads between the Middle East and Europe. As Greece continues its downward spiral, we may see Turkey get more involved in the nation they once conquered.
Turkey is also gaining support with their historic rivals in the Arab world. Erdogan was recently awarded the "King Faisal International Prize" by the Organization of the Islamic Conference for his "services to Islam." In the World View section of an Arab opinion poll conducted in 2010, 20 percent of respondents said that Erdogan was the world leader outside their country that they admired most. A further 19 percent said that Erdogan was the second most admired world leader, placing him at the very top of both lists. But the most interesting part of this poll is the fact that Erdogan was a nobody as recently as 2009 (he tied with Saddam Hussein in popularity, if that's any indication). So what changed? The poll was taken in late June and early July, approximately a month after the infamous Gaza flotilla incident. Suddenly, Turkey became a real thorn in the side of the Israelis. And in the year since, the pressure has been steadily building. Many of the countries involved in the 2010 poll have felt the effects of the so called "Arab Spring," especially Egypt. Turkey has presented a new model for revolutionaries in the Arab world to follow. This has had the side effect of straining Turkey's relationship with Iran. For decades, Islamic revolutionaries have used the Iranian model of violence and aggressive jihad against their enemies, not to mention the Iranian-supplied equipment and weapons. But the flotilla incident proved that controlling the public relations battlefield was just as important as any physical territory. That is why we are seeing a substantial reduction in self-labeled mujahadeen and an increase in "peace activists" who push for the same goals. What a difference a name makes.
Anti-Israeli sentiments and hatred of Jews have seen a sharp increase in Turkey in the past several years. Indeed, Turkey is in a unique geographic position to be affected by three distinct but related strains of anti-Semitism. Nazi propaganda from Europe, Tsarist writings such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion from Russia, and traditional Islamic attitudes about the Jews combine to form a nasty stew that has poisoned Turkey's relationship with Israel. Erdogan is no stranger to anti-Semitism, having written, directed, and starred in a theatrical play condemning the conspiracies of the Jews (the Turks must be hard up for entertainment). Turkey will continue to drift further into the Islamic sphere and further from the West in the years to come, and the anti-Semitism will only increase.
Turkey poses a problem for the West for two main reasons: its diplomatic influence and its inspiration of Arab revolutionaries. The international condemnation of Israel following the Gaza flotilla incident came about largely due to Turkish influence in the Middle East, Russia, and Europe. Meanwhile, as the "Arab Spring" continues and Israel is placed under increasing pressure from all sides, Erdogan's Turkey will be there to push for Islamist regimes. The White House may say that the uprisings in the Middle East are a result of the people's desire for democracy, but they conveniently ignore the influence of Turkey. After all, Prime Minister Erdogan said himself, "Democracy is like a streetcar. When you reach your stop, you get off." At what point do the Arab revolutionaries take Erdogan's advice to "get off" the democracy streetcar and push for a full-blown Caliphate? It may be sooner than you think.
First, a little history lesson. After the collapse of the Byzantine empire, the Ottoman Turks built the greatest Islamic empire in history. For centuries, the Turks cast a shadow over all of Europe. But internal conflicts and the decadence of their superpower position severely weakened the Ottoman Empire. Their imperial designs on Europe (beyond the Balkans) were laid to rest after a crushing defeat on September 11, 1683 at the Battle of Vienna. They limped along as the other European powers grew stronger. Ultimately, the Ottoman Empire chose the wrong side in World War I. They were the bad guys that the British and Arabs were fighting in Lawrence of Arabia, if you recall. After their defeat, the victorious nations of England and France divided up the former Ottoman territories which encompassed most of the Middle East. Included among the lost land was a little area the British called Palestine, but I'll get to that in a later post. In the aftermath, a charismatic military officer named Mustafa Kemal Ataturk led a revolt against the old regime. Ataturk realized that, while the Ottomans still maintained the customs and thinking of a medieval empire, the rest of the world had moved past them. In a bold move that has enraged Muslims for generations, Ataturk abolished the Caliphate and established a secular government in Turkey. The duty of defending this secularism was given to the military. For most of the 20th century, it seemed impossible that Turkey would fall back into Islamism. However, there were people such as Uriel Heyd who saw what was coming and tried to warn the world before it was too late.
The nation of Turkey has seen a resurgence of influence in the past few years. During that time, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the ruling AKP party have pushed Turkey further into the Islamist camp in direct violation of the Turkish constitution. While there is still significant resistance to the current direction of the country, particularly among the military leadership, the fact is that Turkey has no real reason to turn away from its increasingly Islamic character. Several military officers who have expressed displeasure with Erdogan's leadership have been arrested. The European Union is content to ignore the warning signs and even weaken the ability of the Turkish military to fulfill their constitutional mandate to maintain a secular government. Turkey is an important member of NATO and sits at the crossroads between the Middle East and Europe. As Greece continues its downward spiral, we may see Turkey get more involved in the nation they once conquered.
Turkey is also gaining support with their historic rivals in the Arab world. Erdogan was recently awarded the "King Faisal International Prize" by the Organization of the Islamic Conference for his "services to Islam." In the World View section of an Arab opinion poll conducted in 2010, 20 percent of respondents said that Erdogan was the world leader outside their country that they admired most. A further 19 percent said that Erdogan was the second most admired world leader, placing him at the very top of both lists. But the most interesting part of this poll is the fact that Erdogan was a nobody as recently as 2009 (he tied with Saddam Hussein in popularity, if that's any indication). So what changed? The poll was taken in late June and early July, approximately a month after the infamous Gaza flotilla incident. Suddenly, Turkey became a real thorn in the side of the Israelis. And in the year since, the pressure has been steadily building. Many of the countries involved in the 2010 poll have felt the effects of the so called "Arab Spring," especially Egypt. Turkey has presented a new model for revolutionaries in the Arab world to follow. This has had the side effect of straining Turkey's relationship with Iran. For decades, Islamic revolutionaries have used the Iranian model of violence and aggressive jihad against their enemies, not to mention the Iranian-supplied equipment and weapons. But the flotilla incident proved that controlling the public relations battlefield was just as important as any physical territory. That is why we are seeing a substantial reduction in self-labeled mujahadeen and an increase in "peace activists" who push for the same goals. What a difference a name makes.
Anti-Israeli sentiments and hatred of Jews have seen a sharp increase in Turkey in the past several years. Indeed, Turkey is in a unique geographic position to be affected by three distinct but related strains of anti-Semitism. Nazi propaganda from Europe, Tsarist writings such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion from Russia, and traditional Islamic attitudes about the Jews combine to form a nasty stew that has poisoned Turkey's relationship with Israel. Erdogan is no stranger to anti-Semitism, having written, directed, and starred in a theatrical play condemning the conspiracies of the Jews (the Turks must be hard up for entertainment). Turkey will continue to drift further into the Islamic sphere and further from the West in the years to come, and the anti-Semitism will only increase.
Turkey poses a problem for the West for two main reasons: its diplomatic influence and its inspiration of Arab revolutionaries. The international condemnation of Israel following the Gaza flotilla incident came about largely due to Turkish influence in the Middle East, Russia, and Europe. Meanwhile, as the "Arab Spring" continues and Israel is placed under increasing pressure from all sides, Erdogan's Turkey will be there to push for Islamist regimes. The White House may say that the uprisings in the Middle East are a result of the people's desire for democracy, but they conveniently ignore the influence of Turkey. After all, Prime Minister Erdogan said himself, "Democracy is like a streetcar. When you reach your stop, you get off." At what point do the Arab revolutionaries take Erdogan's advice to "get off" the democracy streetcar and push for a full-blown Caliphate? It may be sooner than you think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)